On Mar 21, 2009, at 1:38 PM, Jon Harrop wrote:
. You will succumb to ocamlopt's current run-time representation
which is
objectively inefficient (e.g. boxing floats, tuples, records) and
was only
chosen because the compiler lacks capabilities that LLVM already
provides for
you (primarily JIT compilation).
This is probably a stupid suggestion but why not have OCaml directly
generate machine code, without the use of assembler and linker?
Wouldn't this be easier than trying to couple OCaml with LLVM?
Separately, it's sort of funny that LLVM and its users are going
through all the trouble now, when Lisp and Forth have had runtime
compilation for years and years.
---
http://linkedin.com/in/joelreymont
_______________________________________________
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
